[scryer]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I think the current reality in Winnipeg is that the benefit/cost ratio of traveling by vehicle is much higher than the benefit/cost ratio of travelling by transit . In Canadian cities that have extensive rapid transit systems and TOD - basically just Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal - the benefits of transit are higher because the cost of driving a vehicle is much higher.

Think of it this way: Citizens are going to maximize their benefits, relative to their budget constraint. For many people in Winnipeg, parking is relatively cheap, insurance is relatively cheap, and the time cost of switching to transit is very high. In large cities with higher levels of congestion, taking transit likely saves time (or is roughly equal to commuting via car) and parking and insurance rates mean it is cost prohibitive for many to even own a car in the first place.

In Winnipeg, the convenience factor for car ownership is amplified by several months of difficult weather. This makes it even more difficult for citizens to move away from Transit since if transit cannot provide time savings, it has to make up for it through a combination of convenience or cost savings. With cheap insurance and parking, the cost savings are minimal so convenience needs to be extremely high which it currently is not.

As Winnipeg grows and becomes more congested, and if the City has foresight and will add more diamond lanes that bring down commute times for transit users while vehicle users commute time increase, then the equation begins to change.

But for now, congestion time costs are simply not high enough to spur massive transit demand.

Truth. Also Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are MUCH more denser than Winnipeg and they all have an explosive development scene; all those factors and then some need to be considered when comparing to Winnipeg.

However I do feel like Winnipeg is looking for that exact replica-city to make a comparison to which isn't going to happen. The closest that we have to compare with is Edmonton and Calgary - both of which have completely different economies although they are the most similar to us (in terms of transit).

I will say right here and now, that the BRT system will never be recognized as an effective system until it makes a grade-separated connection to downtown.

Originally Posted by esquire

Is there a RT project anywhere with a payoff timeframe of under 30 years?

Are we talking TOD or a business case cost/benefit ratio? I know a tiny bit more about the former and less about the latter.

Originally Posted by headhorse

^ I think the dog leg and the amount of stations are the biggest problems. I'm not convinced at all on TOD (all of the TOD so far is low density and has no services - even places like Edmonton where they have LRT their TOD's have been busts)

I think that you aren't taking into consideration that both "rapid" (puh-leese) transit systems command a lot of drawbacks and gripes from the public. Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Calgary all have systems that are mixed in with regular traffic combined with unprotected stops/stations in some of the coldest cities on Earth - how COULD that conveniently serve anyone enough to have them consider ditching their vehicle? People aren't going to buy a place with reduced parking in lieu of access to transit because everyone knows that the benefits of private vehicles outweigh the benefits of transit.

Originally Posted by headhorse

and the park and ride is similarly bizarre when most of those PNR are what? ten minutes from downtown? if they actually increased congestion along the route like reducing traffic lanes on osborne (or having just run the RT route on Pembina) we might see more ridership but as of right now, I'm not convinced.

I actually don't see anything offensively wrong with the Park and Rides and I gently disagree with you. I can see them being used a lot more in the Summer or when there's a special event like Canada Day going on . I actually think that the Park and Rides on Seel and Clarence stations have the potential to have the biggest impacts on the system. I will wait and see on that one though since it's too early to tell how often they will get used. And remember: a parking lot can be easily redeveloped.

Originally Posted by headhorse

we should be building transit to the places that have the density and ridership to support, not trying to crate a fictitious market for transit where the demand does not exist.

Transit (specifically rapid transit) needs to carry you betwixt major destinations. In all cities major destinations are the downtown area, the airport, and any larger universities. I say this to point out that I actually do think that the grade-separated corridor for Harkness > Stadium with its current set of stations is actually a decent route if it was all done in one phase and not have its construction spread out for almost a decade.

However they completely mucked the university part by not continuing the grade-separated transit corridor all the way to the U of M. There won't be another rapid transit extension into the U of M for a LONG time now. On paper, the route itself is decent but the actual execution is shit. And the weird little turnaround at Markham station is... just.. weird.

As for developing rapid transit around density - I hate to break it to you but most of the population of Winnipeg is sprawled out in the suburbs so the opportunity is actually to connect the suburbs to Downtown in order to get any decent transit into the city centre.




Winnipeg Transit Site

I know that I am going against what I had just said but the next logical step, IMO, would be a completely grade-separated connection downtown all the way to Portage and Main with a proper station at Union Station. This is outlined above in the dotted orange line.

A proper grade separated connection would provide a legitimate rapid transit pathway between the major economic centre of downtown and the U of M. This would actually be convenient enough to encourage people from the Southwestern suburbs to ditch their cars at the Park and Ride to take the BRT downtown since downtown is somewhat walkable.

The only thing is that this has to be done right or the city's next generation will pay dearly for it.